Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Jitender Saini – Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner lacks locus standi. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petition not maintainable under article 226. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. order dismisses petition, allows corporation actions. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Corporation to take action against the alleged illegal unauthorized construction being carried out in property No.L-2/98, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
3. Petitioner claims to be a resident of M-43, Second floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. Petitioner has failed to show any connection with the subject property. Petitioner is neither a neighbor nor has any interest in the subject property.
4. Since petitioner has failed to show any locus standi or any violation of his fundamental or legal rights a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable.
5. However, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that property is being raised pursuant to a sanctioned building plan, however, there are some deviations noticed because of which action has already been initiated by the Corporation. He further submi
A petition under Article 226 is not maintainable unless the petitioner demonstrates locus standi and establishes a connection to the property in question.
A neighbor lacks legal standing to challenge illegal construction unless their legal rights are adversely affected.
A petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right, and lack of locus standi and failure to demonstrate infringement of fundamental or....
A party approaching the court must do so with clean hands and without ulterior motives.
The principle of negative equality does not apply, and action can be taken against unauthorized construction regardless of inaction by the Corporation on other illegal constructions in the society.
Unauthorized construction cannot be defended based on inaction against other similar violations; each case must be treated according to its own merits.
The court underscored the requirement for lawful procedures regarding unauthorized constructions, affirming the rights of property occupants to defend against actions taken.
Unauthorized construction claims must be substantiated with verified facts; existence of a sanctioned plan negates the basis for legal intervention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
